From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Romero

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 3, 2022
2:17-cv-1884 TLN DB P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)

Opinion

2:17-cv-1884 TLN DB P

06-03-2022

LANCE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ROMERO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On April 28, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to respond to discovery. On May 16, defendants filed an opposition. In a recent filing, plaintiff asks for clarification about a reply brief. Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 230(1) provides that a reply brief, while not required, should be filed within seven days of service of the opposition brief. While that time has passed, this court will permit plaintiff additional time to file a reply brief, if he wishes.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file any reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiff's April 28 motion to compel. I f plaintiff chooses not to file a reply brief, he shall notify the court within twenty days.


Summaries of

Williams v. Romero

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 3, 2022
2:17-cv-1884 TLN DB P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)
Case details for

Williams v. Romero

Case Details

Full title:LANCE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ROMERO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 3, 2022

Citations

2:17-cv-1884 TLN DB P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)